SI March April 2010 pgs:SI J A 2009 1/22/10 11:57 AM Page 59

B O O K R E V I E W S

133, and even then he makes only pass- Beliefs in ing mention of the many unexplained Cultural Context problems, logical flaws, and factual errors in the myriad stories told about the film’s creation. Perhaps Buhs did not want to get bogged down in what he felt Bigfoot: The Life and Times of a Legend. By Joshua Blu was insider minutiae or wade into the Buhs, University of Chicago Press, 2009. ISBN: 978-0- morass of conflicting arguments. What - 226-07979-0. 304 pp. Hardcover, $29. ever the reason, the Bigfoot film had a far greater effect on Bigfoot re search—and the public’s image of the beast—than Buhs recognizes. hose who research things never effort has been made to find them. In proven to exist—such as Big - fact, Buhs catalogs many searches (of As Bigfoot makes clear, T foot—sooner or later find them- varying quality and scientific integrity, selves experts not on the subject itself some of them funded by Texas million- the history of Bigfoot (lacking a physical corpus to examine) but aire Tom Slick) for these cryptozoologi- instead on the phenomena surrounding cal mysteries. is a history of almost- the subject: the evidence, claims, counter- Several years ago, a book by Greg hads and near-misses, claims, folklore, and so on. Often the cul- Long titled The Making of Bigfoot drew a tural context of a monster is critical in very unsavory (and by all accounts quite tall stories, hoaxes, understanding why it exists in the form accurate) portrait of Roger Patterson, and more than a few it does and what role it plays in the soci- who supposedly filmed the famous 1967 ety that accepts or doubts it. Bigfoot. Buhs reinforces Patterson’s repu- fervent and sincere Therein lies the value in Joshua Blu tation as an untrustworthy character. Buhs’s new book, Bigfoot: The Life and The picture Buhs paints of cryptozool- true believers. Times of a Legend. Buhs examines the ogy’s founding fathers is only slightly more topic as an anthropologist and cultural flattering. Ivan Sanderson, for example, Buhs stumbles in a few places, espe- historian, providing insight into how the who is often touted as a model of pioneer- cially when discussing skeptics. For ex - world came to know Bigfoot. This ing investigation into unknown animals, ample, on page 63 he repeats a basic and approach, however, occasionally veers was perfectly willing to sensationalize and common error by suggesting that skeptics into slightly dubious analysis. (Was the exaggerate stories to help sell his articles dismiss all Bigfoot evidence as the result Yeti really seen as a symbol of post-colo- and books. Indeed, Buhs mentions of lies, pranks, or hallucinations. In fact, nial British character? Is Bigfoot really a Sanderson’s “low standards of truth and there is a fourth option (accounting for metaphor of “simultaneously other and consistency” and quotes a review in the the majority of Bigfoot evidence) of self, black and white, woman and man”?) San Francisco Chronicle: “No story seems which Buhs seems unaware: common Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and a too wild or improbable for Mr. San - perceptual and cognitive errors. The bulk guy in an ape costume is just a guy in an derson” (Sanderson was once fooled by a of Bigfoot “evidence” comes in the form ape costume. crude hoax and came to believe that fif- of eyewitness accounts, and most of those As Bigfoot makes clear, the history of teen-foot-tall penguins existed in Florida). Bigfoot is a history of almost-hads and He also (like Charles Fort) had a deep- near-misses, tall stories, hoaxes, and rooted antipathy for science, an influence Benjamin Radford wrote “Bigfoot at 50: more than a few fervent and sincere true sadly evident in modern . Evaluating a Half-Century of Bigfoot believers. Buhs is at his best when pro- Says longtime Bigfoot researcher Rene Evidence” in the March/April 2002 viding a context with the various color- Dahinden, “I don’t give a damn about sci- and is coauthor of ful characters and events dotting the sto- ence. I could care less about science.” Mysteries: Investigating ried history of the Yeti and Bigfoot. He Oddly, despite being offered as the the World’s Most Elusive Creatures with also gives lie to a claim often heard from gold standard for Bigfoot evidence for . His book on the Hispanic Bigfoot proponents about why the crea- over forty years, Buhs does not discuss will be published tures remain elusive: that no serious the Patterson/Gimlim film until page later this year.

SKEPTICAL INQUIRER March / April 2010 59 SI March April 2010 pgs:SI J A 2009 1/22/10 11:57 AM Page 60

B O O K R E V I E W S

are misunderstandings and mistakes, not Buhs admits, treated the subject with im ploding with little help from the prevarications or hallucinations. respect and the claimants without a hint skeptics. Poisoned by exposed hoaxes, Buhs also falters when he describes of ridicule. (Readers of this magazine are arrogant and premature proclamations the skeptical response to Bigfoot, stating invited to review past articles on Bigfoot of conclusive evidence, and vindictive that skeptics routinely ridicule the sub- to see if they find the pattern of ridicule infighting—not to mention a glaring ject of Bigfoot and its researchers instead that Buhs finds so evident; the book lack of scientific rigor and hard evi- of actively engaging their claims. Buhs might have been better informed about dence—Bigfooters were becoming frus- believes that Bigfoot is not taken seri- skeptics had Buhs actually interviewed trated, and the search began coming ously by skeptics who are “tailors, stitch- any skeptics instead of relying largely on apart at the seams. Overall, Bigfoot: The ing together a laughter curtain.” Yet the commentary by anti-CSI critics.) Life and Times of a Legend does a good most prominent skeptical Bigfoot re - Buhs himself is skeptical of Bigfoot’s job of explaining the cultural and his- searcher, the late Michael Dennett, was existence and makes it pretty clear that torical context of the world’s most an unfailingly fair investigator who, even by the mid-1970s, Bigfoot research was famous monster.!

the Waltons, who were Quak ers, and the Solving a Mysterious other island residents, who were largely Puritan. In addition to these differences, Event from Long Ago there was a long history of legal dis- TERENCE HINES putes, mostly involving land claims, between the Waltons and others on the The Devil of Great Island: Witchcraft and Conflict in Early island. Because of the great difficulty of New England. By Emerson W. Baker, Palgrave, Macmillan, establishing land claims in the late sev- New York, 2007. ISBN: 13-978-1-4039-7207-1. 244 pp. enteenth century, with the vague specifi- Hardcover, $24.95. cations of boundaries (i.e., “from the large oak stump go until you reach the big rock by the stream”) and the chang- he Devil of Great Island observed the stones, some as big as his was not ing validity of land grants as political written as a skeptical or debunk- fist, flying onto the porch. The control changed, land disputes could, ing effort. Emerson Baker in - onslaught soon forced everyone to T retreat to a more protected part of the and did, drag on for dec ades and create tended to tell the story of a seemingly iso- tavern. Still they could not escape the serious animosity between the parties. lated incident of witchcraft on a tiny fury. Flying rocks appeared inside the Baker makes it clear that the real cul- island off the New Hampshire coast in tavern and struck two boys in the legs, prits behind the stone throwing, termed 1682, which he does admirably. But the and Chamberlain was nearly hit in “lapidary salutations” in the charming story has great relevance for a skeptical the head. Outside, the rocks contin- ued to batter the Walton tavern, vernacular of the time, were people approach to historical poltergeist cases. breaking windows and causing con- opposed to the Waltons either because of The story starts on Great Island on siderable damage. (Baker 7) their endless court proceedings or their the Piscataqua River just off the coast of religious affiliation. There was nothing Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in June The “attack continued for over four paranormal about it. But to late seven- 1682. The residents of the home and hours.” Stones even “came down the teenth-century New Hampshire folk tavern of George Walton were suddenly chim ney,” and “several rocks seemed to raised and immersed in a world in which under attack fall out of the ceiling.” In the absence of any logical explanation for what they almost anything out of the ordinary was when invisible assailants furiously observed, the household believed it was due to supernatural influences, such a assaulted them with a barrage of fly- ing stones. As they ran into the tav- a supernatural attack “perpetuated by ern, the stones slammed repeatedly the devil himself” (8). Terence Hines is a professor of psychology into the building. The noise woke The attacks continued for the next at Pace University, an adjunct professor of Walton’s sleeping family and guests, several months, and witchcraft was the neurology at New York Medical College, and soon a terrified household had obvious explanation. and author of and the gathered at the entry of the enclosed Paranormal. He is a Committee for porch. Boarder and attorney Richard Or was it? Baker masterfully traces the Chamberlain was one of those who political and religious differences be tween Skeptical Inquiry scientific consultant.

60 Volume 34, Issue 2 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER